Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp

The sheer number of images on this page and the opening paragraph suggest to me that the purpose of this page is merely to stash public-domain lesbian porn for "use", not for legitimate research, and thus fails WP:User page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

:It's not porn, it's artistic material. And if you take a look, you'll see that there is far more than sapphic intercourse depicted on the page.

• Keep seems OK to me, if none of them are non-free. The footnote on WP:User page is not policy, it's just some comments that were added without consensus. Gigs (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of places with erotics museums, at the end erotic it's art too, this material can be used with artistical purposes.

• Delete. It's obviously not an article and it'll never be one, and the collection doesn't have any utility to the project. (We don't ever find ourselves saying, "This article needs some porn, let's go add some to it.") So, even aside from the porn issue, the user page isn't on solid ground. There's also some specific language on WP:User page#Images which states that:

:: "Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) [...] may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review."

: This is clearly meant to refer to this exact sort of page. Similar wording ("any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute") has been in place on the policy page for well over a year - it's certainly not just "some comments that were added without consensus". Zetawoof (ζ) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UP#Images, as cited above by Zetawoof. I think it's fair to call this "content clearly intended as sexually provocative." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't porn, it's erotica. And for a few articles, these iamges are needed. I'd rather have sets kept in one easy place to find them than scattered about. It's much tidier! 2.122.247.45 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

:*These images aren't added to articles from other users' pages, however. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

::* And an indiscriminate collection of porn (like this page) isn't even all useful for articles. We choose images to illustrate, not to decorate, and the collection here isn't organized or specific enough for it to be "needed" for anything. Zetawoof (ζ) 02:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:::* They're organised in alphabetical order, and I assume that by 'specific', you mean they have something in common. In that case, they have the following things in common:

::::* They have artistic value (i.e. wouldn't fail a drawing/photography class)

::::* They do not show or condone the Greek vice

::::* They show one or more of the following organs:

:::::* The penis;

:::::* the vulva;

:::::* the breasts; or

:::::* the buttocks. --Nmatavka (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

:* So, in other words, it's an collection of images which appeal to your prurient interests. Duly noted. Zetawoof (ζ) 07:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete WP:notcensored does not apply to user page content that is clearly pornographic. IF the user can demonstrate a good-faith use of this material, other than the obvious, then I'd reconsider. I COULD see a legitimate use perhaps in keeping an eye on existing explicit wikimedia/pedia material for tracking purposes (to make sure that it's not being used in vandalism or to make sure that it's not being censored from articles) but that's not what's happening here. As an aside though I have to admire the users Herculean effort in establishing a compendium of every image on wikipedia you could imagine that has an exposed vulva in it. If we could only get that sort of dedication in non-genital areas! HominidMachinae (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Where at WP:CENSORED do you see that it doesn't cover user pages? CTJF83 12:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

::*WP:User pages#Images, second paragraph, explicitly notes that Content clearly intended as sexually provocative[...]that appears to have little or no project benefit[...]may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review. While I can see a discussion about an image as having project benefit, a mighty wall of nude female and lesbian images from Commons can't pass that description, especially because it doesn't appear to be for tracking purposes and, as the paragraph at the top seems to indicate, is intended to be a porn stash. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:::*That is just a guideline, while NOTCENSORED is a policy. CTJF83 17:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

::::NOTCENSORED still doesn't prevent the deletion of userpages that are obviously used as pornography collections. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - there are any number of places to stash one's personal porn collection. User pages are not personal websites. Usefulness to the project needs to be demonstrated here - David Gerard (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Give me a break. Not an asset to the project. Deliberately provocative and prurient. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep if this nonsense - "To be honest, I think men's love is against God's will" - is removed. I agree with Hominid's point of "see a legitimate use perhaps in keeping an eye on existing explicit wikimedia/pedia material for tracking purposes (to make sure that it's not being used in vandalism or to make sure that it's not being censored from articles"...very true. CTJF83 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Actually everything in the top paragraph should be removed, looks soapboxy to me. CTJF83 12:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

::*The problem with that is that the paragraph seems to make explicit with the last sentence or two that the images there are being "researched" in the same way a tom sniffing the backside of a female cat in estrus is "research". I quote: [...]So is women's love [against God's will], but at least women's love makes me feel funny in my pants, and not upchuck in horror. (Note how carefully I've avoided the P-word, so as not to wake up Internet filters). —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:::*I admit, that was the original intent of the page; I wrote it up so as I could research anatomically-accurate images of the human body where such research is filtered, such as institutions of higher education. However, I believe that this page has exceeded its original intent. I agree with you about removing the text at the top, as it is no longer relevant. However, I'd like to see this page kept, as I believe that a compendium of artistic depictions of the human form has other uses besides material to aid in self-stimulation. --Nmatavka (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

::::*Perhaps if you put at the top something like "I am watching these images to prevent vandalism and censorship", you could sway some of the deleters. CTJF83 00:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - my view is as follows - if these images legitimately exist on Wikipedia or Commons, and they are freely licensed images (as opposed to fair use), I see no problem with including them on any User page. Now, maybe some of these images shouldn't exist on Wikipedia or Commons, in which case the proper response is to seek deletion of those images rather than the User page. All this content already exists on the site anyway - all the user is doing is bringing a selection of it they find particular interesting to attention on their user page; that is fundamentally no different than a user keeping a list of articles they are interested in on their user page (something many users do without controversy). Now, fair use is an exception, since a fair use rationale which exists for an article, probably not exist for a user page. But, based on the few I have checked, these are all freely-licensed or used-with-permission images, so I can't see the problem with having a gallery of them (even if these images are not to many user's taste). As I said, if you don't like the images, propose the images for deletion, not a user page that just provides a gallery of them. --SJK (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

:*I don't object to the images, I object to the apparent intent of the userpage, as I noted in my deletion argument. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

::*My point is that if content permissibly exists on Wikipedia, a mere aggregation of that content in user space with no or minimal commentary (such as a list of links to articles, an image gallery, a user-space book) should be fine, regardless of its purpose. This is fundamentally no different than someone keeping a "list of my favourite" articles in User-space; or they could have a "list of my favourite images" - here, they have just made it a gallery, which I also think is fine (so long as none of the images are fair use). --SJK (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:::I ought to add at this juncture that according to "what links here" several of these images are being kept alive (un-orphaned) ONLY by this page, or this page and other user pages. I agree with notcensored. In fact in my private life I am a rabid libertarian and a firm believer in the phrase "those who are easily offended should be offended more often. In my private, personal life it makes me deeply happy when someone is offended by homosexual images just because I think people that are homophobic should be offended and have their sensibilities violated as often as possible. All of that said, however, I don't feel Wikipedia should be used to push my beliefs. Any user page that risks bringing the project into disrepute is removable per the USER guidelines, and a repository of vintage pornography is easily a case of that. And yes, I use the term pornography. Above someone mentioned "erotica" versus pornography, and I respectfully disagree that this is erotica: explicit depictions of penile-vaginal insertion are not erotica they are pornography, especially presented as baldly as here and without medical or scientific context. To use the term used by the supreme court of the united states this collection, as indiscriminate as it is in selecting from disparate sources of bare genitals, is "designed only to appeal to the prurient interest" HominidMachinae (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UP#Images. It seems clear that this is intended to be a gallery of porn (ancient or modern), especially as the page's title is "N0rp". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UP#Images, which states:

  There is also broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review. (my bolding)

  I agree with {{user|Fetchcomms}}'s comment about the page's title indicating its intent. I further note that Cunard (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Not what user-space is for, adds nothing of value to the project to collect naked images, free or non-free, into a gallery like this. Of course I'm totally right-clicking-and-saving-as before t gets deleted, but that's besides the point. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep No requirement that userspace be articles. No indication that it is "porn" (which would be deletable at Commons). Any which are porn should be removed at Commons as provided there. Collect (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

:*We're debating a userpage full of erotica that had a paragraph explicitly noting that the user was gathering them because they were sexually excited by these images and whose name, as noted by Fetchcomms, is "pr0N" backwards. The obvious intent is as a smut repository, not as a page to research erotica. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears a lot of people are helpfully "researching" these images - [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/User:Nmatavka/N0rp?year=201104&proj=en almost 23,000 hits] on 6 April! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• :That's 'cause no publicity is bad publicity. Plus, I bet people read this page, saw that there were artistic nudes and such on my n0rp page, and decided to check it out and use it for its erstwhile purpose. I wonder how many keyboards got liquid damage that day from "salty milk spilling on it by accident". --Nmatavka (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• ::I wonder how many came from [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33370&st=0&p=271762&#entry271762 Wikipedia Review]. -- œ^™ 09:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Hey, if you delete this page, you might as well delete User:Nmatavka/Prawn too. :) --Nmatavka (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. One man's art is another man's trash. It's an interesting collection... I can see some value by having these all in one place, a central directory of sorts where we can keep tabs on them in case there's any potential for abuse, kinda like the bad image list. -- œ^™ 09:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - of zero benefit to the project - Alison ^❤ 10:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The user has made it fairly clear that he is not using this for research; we need not bend over backwards (or forwards, in this case) to assume better faith than is intended. It isn't even useful as a list of erotic images, since Nmatavka has openly neglected images that he apparently doesn't find titillating. Wikipedia is not a webhost and it is not the space under your mattress either. Danger (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.